Japan 

and  the 

Gentlemen’s  Agreement 


The  Charge  is  made  by  Senator  Phelan  and  others 
that  Japan  has  been  violating  it. 

Do  the  facts  support  the  charge  ? 


Sidney  L.  Gulick 
Secretary  of  the 

Commission  on  Relations  with  the  Orient 

of  the 

Federal  Council  of  the  Churches  of  Christ  in  America 

105  East  22d  Street,  New  York  City 


JAPAN  AND  THE  GENTLEMEN’S  AGREEMENT 

Senator  James  D.  Phelan  and  Mr.  V.  S.  McClatchy,  both  of 
California,  have  charged  the  Japanese  Government  with  violation  of 
the  “Gentlemen’s  Agreement.”  Senator  Phelan  appeared  before  the 
House  Committee  on  Immigration  June  20,  1919,  and  Mr.  McClatchy 
appeared  before  the  House  Committee  on  September  25th  and  before 
the  Senate  Committee  on  October  10,  1919.  Their  statements  are 
recorded  in  full  in  the  Hearings  of  these  Committees  for  these  dates. 
The  purpose  of  the  following  discussion  is  limited  to  an  evaluation  of 
their  chargeg. 

JAPANESE  IMMIGRATION 

Japanese  immigration  began  in  the  eighties  of  the  last  century 
but  remained  very  slight  until  1900.  In  that  year  it  suddenly  rose 
from  1,500  to  2,000  annually  to  12,635,  of  whom  about  10,000  came 
to  Continental  United  States  from  Hawaii.  This  was  one  of  the  im- 
mediate results  of  the  annexation  of  Hawaii.  In  1907  Japanese  im- 
migration was  30,226  of  whom,  however,  9,361  only  were  admitted 
to  Continental  United  States.  The  rapid  increase  of  Japanese  men — 
mostly  laborers,  many  of  them  from  Hawaii,  naturally  resulted  in 
keen  economic  competition.  No  little  sharp  practice  was  indulged  in 
on  both  sides.  A vigorous  anti-Japanese  agitation  developed  in  Cali- 
fornia calling  for  laws  dealing  with  Japanese  immigration  similar  to 
those  which  had  so  effectually  stopped  Chinese  immigration  thirty 
years  before. 

Responsible  Japanese,  both  in  and  out  of  the  Government,  recog- 
nized the  substantial  justice  of  the  demands  of  California  for  protec- 
tion from  the  evils  and  dangers  of  large  Japanese  immigration.  But 
with  their  characteristic  sensitiveness  they  felt  that  Congressional 
legislation  dealing  with  their  people  similar  to  that  which  was  in 
force  against  Chinese  would  be  humiliating.  Their  admiration  for 
America  and  sense  of  friendship,  made  them  desire  a mutually  satis- 
factory voluntary  arrangement  without  legislation.  Such  was  the 
economic  and  psychological  background  on  which  the  new  arrange- 
ments were  made.  Japan  undertook  in  1907  to  stop  labor  immigra- 
tion to  Continental  United  States  with  the  understanding  that  there 
would  be  no  special  anti-Japanese  legislation. 

THE  GENTLEMEN’S  AGREEMENT 

The  first  published  statement  of  that  “Agreement”  is  found  in 
the  Report  of  the  Commissioner  General  of  Immigration  for  1908 
(p.  125),  and  reads  in  part  as  follows: — 

“In  order  that  the  best  results  might  follow  from  an  enforcement  of 
the  regulations,  an  understanding  was  reached  with  Japan  that  the  existing 
policy  of  discouraging  the  emigration  of  its  subjects  of  the  laboring  classes 
to  Continental  United  States  should  be  continued  and  should,  by  co-opera- 


2 


tion  of  the  Governments,  be  made  as  effective  as  possible.  This  understand- 
ing contemplates  that  the  Japanese  Government  shall  issue  passports  to 
Continental  United  States  only  to  such  of  its  subjects  as  are  non-laborers 
or  are  laborers,  who,  in  coming  to  the  continent,  seek  to  resume  a formerly 
acquired  domicile,  to  join  a parent,  wife,  or  children  residing  there,  or  to 
assume  active  control  of  an  already  possessed  interest  in  a farming  enterprise 
in  this  country;  so  that  the  three  classes  of  laborers  entitled  to  receive  pass- 
ports have  come  to  be  designated  ‘former  residents,’  ‘parents,  wives  or 
children  of  residents,’  and  ‘settled  agriculturists.’  With  respect  to  Hawaii, 
the  Japanese  Government  of  its  own  volition  stated  that,  experimentally  at 
least,  the  issuance  of  passports  to  members  of  the  laboring  classes  proceeding 
thence  would  be  limited  to  ‘former  residents’  and  ‘parents,  wives  or  children 
of  residents.’  The  said  Government  has  also  been  exercising  a careful  super- 
vision over  the  subject  of  the  emigration  of  its  laboring  class  to  foreign 
contiguous  territory.” 

In  his  Report  for  1919  (p.  55),  Mr.  Caminetti  makes  the  follow- 
ing statement: 

“It  will  be  remembered  that  the  passport  agreement,  which  was  made  in 
1907,  provides,  in  effect,  that  Japan  will  not  issue  passports  good  for  Con- 
tinental United  States  to  laborers,  unless  such  laborers  are  coming  to  resume 
a formerly  acquired  domicile;  to  join  a parent,  husband,  or  children;  or  to 
assume  active  control  of  an  already  possessed  interest  in  a farming  enter- 
prise in  this  country.  While  the  agreement  relates  only  to  immigration  to 
Continental  United  States,  Japan  soon  voluntarily  extended  the  same  pro- 
visions to  the  movement  to  Hawaii,  so  that  in  effect  all  immigration  of 
Japanese  laborers  is  subject  to  its  terms.  Non-laborers,  of  course,  are  not 
affected  and  are  free  to  come  and  go  under  the  same  conditions  which 
obtain  in  the  case  of  aliens  of  other  nationalities.” 

This  is  the  “Agreement”  which  Senator  Phelan  and  Mr.  Mc- 
Clatchy  charge  Japan  with  having  violated. 

THE  SPECIFIC  CHARGES 

“I  want  to  demonstrate  to  the  Committee,”  says  Mr.  McClatchy, 
“that  the  spirit  and  the  letter  of  the  ‘Gentlemen’s  Agreement’  have 
been  grossly  violated  and  continuously  violated,  and  that  it  is  not 
only  the  citizens  of  Japan  who  are  responsible  for  that  violation,  but 
it  is  Japan  herself,  because  these  violations  could  not  have  been  pos- 
sible without  her  active  support,  if  not  direct  order”  (House  Hear- 
ings, p.  244).  He  specifies  three  methods  of  violation. 

(1)  “By  the  admission  of  labor,”  (2)  “In  the  matter  of  picture 
brides,”  (3)  “By  the  births  in  this  country  through  the  importation 
of  picture  brides. — in  contrast  with  the  results  seen  in  the  Chinese 
who  are  here.” 

“Since  the  Gentlemen’s  Agreement  in  1907  the  Japanese  popu- 
lation in  California,”  he  says,  “has  increased  50,000,  most  of  whom 
are  laborers ; and  everyone  who  is  a laborer,  or  who  was  a laborer 
is  an  instance  of  direct  violation  on  the  part  of  Japan  of  the  Gentle- 
men’s Agreement.  . . . Each  year  there  are  being  admitted  from 

10,000  to  12,000  Japanese.  They  cannot  come  in  without  the  certifi- 
cate of  Japan,  as  I understand,  that  they  are  not  laborers.  Within 
a few  weeks  after  they  arrive  they  are  at  labor,  not  all  but  a great 
portion  of  them,  and  everyone  that  does  labor,  whether  within  two 


3 


weeks  or  in  a year,  is  an  instance  of  a direct  violation  on  the  part 
of  Japan  of  her  pledged  word  as  a gentleman”  (ibid,  p.  247).  “Under 
the  head  of  ‘picture  brides’  there  have  been  admitted  in  less  than 
five  years  past  20,323  women  who  labor — not  all,  but  most  of  them 
labor”  (p.  250).  “Usually  they  will  give  birth  once  a year,  or  nearly 
once  a year  to  children.  The  result  is  that  we  have  in  California 
in  the  neighborhood  of  25,000  native-born  Japanese  and  they  are  being 
born  at  the  rate  of  4,500  and  5,000.  There  you  have  in  those  methods 
the  plan  by  which  Japan  deliberately  and  carefully  violates  the  ‘Gen- 
tlemen’s Agreement’  and  adds  to  the  population  in  this  country,  while 
the  Chinese  on  the  other  hand  have  been  steadily  decreasing”  (p.  251). 

“In  Sacramento  city  the  official  records  of  the  Health  Depart- 
ment show  that  the  birth-rate  among  the  Japanese  is  five  times  as 
great  per  thousand  as  among  the  whites  and  that  proportion,  I am 
told,  holds  quite  general  in  communities  where  the  Japanese  have 
concentrated”  (p.  252). 

“I  have  here,”  said  Senator  Phelan,  “the  number  of  these  picture 
brides  that  are  coming  into  the  United  States.  I will  give  you  the 
aggregate:  From  1915  to  1919,  the  United  States,  mainland,  13,913; 
in  Hawaii,  6,864;  total  for  the  United  States,  20,877”  (p.  190). 

“The  shiploads  that  are  coming  in — 1 call  them  shiploads,  but  I 
mean  the  number  of  brides  who  are  coming  in  on  the  frequently 
arriving  ships  in  San  Francisco  are  progressively  increasing  all  the 
time,  and  the  Japanese  press  exhorts  them — ‘Now,  hurry  up  while 
the  running  is  good.’  They  fear  there  will  be  some  restriction,  and 
they  are  rushing  over  the  border  and  through  the  ports  where  that 
is  permissible,  as  in  the  case  of  these  picture  brides,  their  men  and 
their  women.” 

“Mr.  Raker.  That  means.  Senator,  does  it  not,  that  within  a 
year  after  their  arrival  there  is  a native  Japanese  born  who  can  ob- 
tain title  to  real  estate,  and  they  are  immediately  conveying  real  es- 
tate to  those  infant  children  almost  as  fast  as  they  are  born?” 

“Senator  Phelan.  Yes”  (p.  191). 

“The  percentage  of  white  births  during  the  12  years  has  de- 
creased thus ; In  1906  it  was  98.4 ; then  it  goes  on  year  by  year — the 
next  year,  1907,  1908,  etc. — until  finally  in  1917  it  was  90.6.  There 
was  a decrease  of  8 per  cent  in  the  white  births  during  that  period. 
While  there  was  a decrease  in  the  population  of  white  babies,  there 
was  a marked  increase  in  Japanese  birth  registrations,  as  follows: 

“From  1906,  the  same  period,  until  1917,  as  follows:  134;  221; 
455  ; 682  ; 719 ; 995  ; 1,467  ; 2,215  ; 2,874 ; 3,342 ; 3,721  and  4,108.  In  less 
than  10  years  there  was  an  increase  of  3,000  per  cent”  (p.  192). 

Such  are  the  main  charges.  WTat  is  to  be  said  about  them? 

A PRELIMINARY  CRITICISM 

We  note  first  of  all  that  Mr.  McClatchj'-  does  not  correctly  state 
the  plain  terms  of  the  agreement.  “It  was  assumed  and  stated  posi- 
tively” he  says,  that  “she  would  accomplish  through  her  own  efforts 


4 


in  regard  to  Japanese  exclusion  from  this  country  what  was  being 
accomplished  as  to  Chinese  exclusion  under  our  law.”  While  the 
Chinese  population  in  America  has  been  decreasing,  “the  Japanese 
population  in  the  United  States  has  increased  sixfold  since  1900” 
(Hearings,  p.  243).  Japan,  however,  never  gave  such  a pledge.  Nor 
has  the  American  Government  made  any  such  statement.  His  charge, 
therefore,  that  Japan  has  “grossly  violated”  her  pledge  depends  first 
of  all  on  a serious  misstatement  by  him  of  the  nature  of  the  “Agree- 
ment.” 


A GENERAL  CRITICISM 

In  general  the  figures  given  by  Senator  Phelan  and  Mr.  Mc- 
Clatchy  are  seriously  misleading.  No  one  would  suspect  from  Mr. 
McClatchy’s  statement  that  the  20,323  “picture  brides”  he  is  talking 
about  include  those  who  landed  at  Hawaii.  The  total  arrivals  of 
all  Japanese  “females”  in  Continental  United  States  for  the  time  men- 
tioned (1915-1919)  was  18,459;  of  these  the  “wives”  numbered  13,563. 
He  speaks  moreover  of  immigration  at  10,000  to  12,000  yearly.  As 
a matter  of  fact  more  than  one-third  of  these  go  to  Honolulu,  but 
he  does  not  indicate  it.  He  gives  no  hint  still  further  as  to  how 
many  of  those  who  do  arrive  in  America  leave  again  shortly.  The 
fact  is  that  while  the  total  of  Japanese  admitted  since  1909  (including 
1919)  amount  to  116,728,  the  total  who  have  departed  amount  to 
97,849,  leaving  a net  gain  of  18,879  for  the  eleven  years.  Of  this 
number  10,968  are  in  Continental  United  States  and  8,911  are  in  the 
Territory  of  Hawaii.  Official  figures  completely  dispose  of  Mr.  Mc- 
Clatchy’s assertion  that  “Japanese  in  California  had  increased  by 
50,000  since  the  Gentlemen’s  Agreement  went  into  effect,  most  of 
whom  are  laborers.” 

Mr.  Caminetti  stated  to  the  Senate  Committee  on  Immigration 
October  10,  1919  (Senate  Hearings,  p.  31),  that  during  the  years  1909- 
1919,  13,578  more  Japanese  males  had  left  the  United  States  (includ- 
ing Hawaii)  than  had  entered — a positive  diminution  therefore  of 
Japanese  laborers.  Mr.  McClatchy  apparently  does  not  know  this 
for  he  constantly  gives  the  impression  that  practically  all  the  Japanese 
arriving  are  laborers  and  are  added  to  the  labor  population  already 
here. 

STATISTICS  OF  THE  “PICTURE  BRIDE”  MOVEMENT 

Senator  Phelan  and  Mr.  McClatchy  are  quite  specific  in  their 
statements  about  the  number  of  “picture  brides”  arriving  in  the 
United  States.  Unfortunately  they  do  not  state  the  sources  of  their 
figures.  The  Annual  Reports  of  the  Commissioner  General  of  Immi- 
gration gives  no  figures  as  to  “picture  brides,”  although  figures  are 
given  as  to  the  number  of  “females”  admitted  year  by  year  and  also  a.s 
to  the  total  number  of  “wives.” 

The  Japanese  Association  of  California,  however,  has  had  access 


5 


to  the  original  records  of  the  Immigration  Office  at  San  Francisco 
from  which  it  has  compiled  the  statistics  of  picture  brides  admitted 
at  that  port.  Similar  figures  have  also  been  compiled  for  the  Port 
of  Seattle. 


Japanese  Picture  Brides  Admitted 
at 

San  Francisco,  California  and  Seattle,  Washington 


Year  San  Francisco  Seattle  Total 


1912  879  879 

1913  625  625 

1914  768  768 

1915  823  150  973 

1916  486  144  630 

1917  504  206  710 

1918  520  281  801 

1919  465  267  732 

Total  5,070  1,048  6,118 


So  far  as  the  accessible  records  show,  therefore,  the  number  of 
“picture  brides”  admitted  to  Continental  United  States  for  the  years 
1915-1919  amounts  to  3,846  instead  of  13,913  as  alleged  by  Senator 
Phelan.  The  total  number  of  “wives”  admitted  during  the  specified 
years  was  13,563.  Perhaps  the  Senator  has  assumed  that  all  “wives” 
are  “picture  brides.”  Such,  however,  is  not  the  case. 

CONCERNING  PICTURE  BRIDES  AND  THEIR  BABIES 

A curious  and  interesting  discrepancy  exists  in  all  the  statements 
by  Senator  Phelan  and  Mr.  McClatchy  regarding  the  number  of 
“picture  brides”  as  related  to  the  number  of  Japanese  babies  born  in 
California.  This  remarkable  discrepancy  is  worthy  of  close  attention, 
for  it  well  illustrates  the  general  character  of  their  charges  against 
Japan. 

In  the  following  table  we  estimate  that  two-thirds  of  all  “wives” 
admitted  to  Continental  United  States  settled  in  California  and  also 
that  all  “wives”  or  "picture  brides”  faithfully  carry  out  the  intentions 
of  the  Japanese  Government — as  alleged  by  Mr  McClatchy,  each  hav- 
ing a child  each  year.  “There  you  have  in  those  methods”  he  asserts, 
“the  plan  by  which  Japan  deliberately  and  carefully  violates  the 
Gentlemen’s  Agreement  and  adds  to  the  population  in  this  country 
while  the  Chinese  on  the  other  hand  have  been  steadily  decreasing” 
(p.  251).  In  the  following  table  we  make  no  allowance  for  some 
3,000  wives  who  reached  California  before  1909.  Under  these  condi- 
tions what  should  the  Japanese  births  in  California  have  been?  The 
following  table  tells  the  story. 


6 


^ Comparison  of  the  Alleged 
and  the 

Actual  Births  of  Japanese  in  California 


Year 

"Wivei” 
Admitted  to 
Continental 
United  States 

Wives 
Settled  in 
California 
(Estimated) 

Estimated 
Births  of 
Japanese  in 
California 

Actual  record 
of  Japanese 
Births  in 
California 

1909  

665 

443 

443 

682 

1910  

880 

586 

1,029 

719 

1911  

1,669 

1,112 

2,141 

995 

1912  

2,108 

1,405 

3,546 

1,467 

1913  

2,398 

1,598 

5,144 

2,215 

1914  

3,015 

2,010 

7,154 

2,874 

1915  

2,672 

1,781 

8,935 

3,342 

1916  

2,478 

1,652 

10,587 

3,721 

1917  

2,397 

1,598 

12,185 

4,108 

1918  

2,824 

1,882 

14,067 

4,365 

1919  

3,192 

2,128 

16,195 

4,700* 

Total  . . . . 

24,298 

16,195 

81,426 

29,188 

It  is  evident  from  this  table  that  if  the  wives  all  have  children 
about  “one  each  year” — at  the  prolific  rate  declared  by  the  gentleman 
from  California,  the  number  of  Japanese  babies  born  in  California 
should  greatly  exceed  the  numbers  reported,  especially  if  the  3,000 
wives  in  California  in  1909  had  also  been  doing  their  duty  all  the 
time  for  ten  years.  Evidently  the  “brides”  are  not  “breeding”  at 
such  a rate  as  Senator  Phelan  and  Mr.  McClatchy  say  they  are  and 
“as  the  Japanese  Government  intended,”  if  we  may  accept  the  latter’s 
claim  to  knowledge  in  this  respect.  The  assertion  that  Japanese 
births  in  the  United  States  show  that  Japan  “deliberately  and  care- 
fully violates  the  Gentlemen’s  Agreement”  calls  for  a good  deal  of 
credulity. 

“PICTURE  BRIDES”  AS  LABORERS 

The  only  really  plausible  part  of  Mr.  McClatchy’s  charge  as  to  / 
the  violation  of  the  Gentlemen’s  Agreement  is  that  in  which  he  states 
that  “picture  brides”  are  in  fact  “laborers,”  whereas  the  Agreement 
was  specially  arranged  for  the  purpose  of  excluding  new  laborers. 

If  the  Japanese  Government  did  in  fact  admit  those  women  because 
they  were  laborers,  then  it  violated  the  Agreement.  There  is,  how- 
ever, so  far  as  appears,  not  a single  item  of  evidence  to  that  effect. 
Japanese  laborers  in  America  had  the  right  under  the  Agreement  to 
send  for  their  wives.  These  women  of  course  belonged  to  the  labor- 
ing class.  That  they  should  on  reaching  America  promptly  go  to 
work  with  their  husbands  was  not  only  natural  but  commendable. 

The  first  requisite  of  a good  immigrant  is  readiness  to  work— effec- 
tive economic  productiveness.  Even  in  this  respect  then  the  charge 
of  violation  is  captious.  It  rests  on  a distorted  notion  of  the  terms 
of  the  Agreement. 


* Estimated. 


7 


But  it  should  be  noted  that  the  Japanese  Government  out  of 
deference  to  American  adverse  sentiment  in  regard  to  “picture  bride” 
marriages,  accepting  the  suggestion  of  a memorial  from  the  Japanese 
Association  of  California  announced  in  November,  1919,  that  after 
February,  19^0,  it  would  stop  issuing  passports  to  “picture  brides.” 
This  is  an  important  announcement  and  shows  how  sincere  and  ear- 
nest the  Japanese  in  California  and  the  Government  of  Japan  are  in 
their  desire  to  do  everything  reasonable  to  maintain  friendly  rela- 
tions with  the  United  States. 

In  this  connection  we  may  well  refer  to  the  fact  that  for  many 
years  Japan  has  been  voluntarily  restricting  immigration  to  Mexico, 
applying  to  that  land  also  the  general  principles  of  the  “Gentlemen’s 
Agreement.”  Indeed  Japan’s  solicitude  to  do  the  fair  thing  by  the 
United  States  and  remove  just  so  far  as  she  possibly  can  all  legiti- 
mate cause  of  complaint,  led  her,  we  have  been  informed,  to  arrange 
with  the  Japanese  Steamship  Company,  Toyo  Risen  Kaisha,  running 
to  Peru,  not  to  sell  passage  to  Japanese  from  that  land  to  Mexico, 
because  of  the  fact  that  some  Japanese  had  taken  that  course  to 
smuggle  their  way  into  the  United  States. 

IMPORTANT  STATISTICAL  FACTS 

The  Annual  Reports  of  the  Commissioner  General  of  Immigra- 
tion in  Tables  A to  E give  much  important  information  bearing  on 
the  Gentlemen’s  Agreement.  Compiling  the  figures  for  the  succes- 
sive years  (1909-1919)  since  the  Agreement  went  into  full  operation, 
we  arrive  at  certain  surprising  as  well  as  interesting  facts.  The 
following  statements  deal  only  with  Continental  United  States. 

Total  admittances  were  79,738  of  whom  49,156  were  males  and 
30,883  were  females.  Of  the  total  admittances,  35,275  are  classified 
as  relatives  of  residents,  namely  parents  (560),  wives  (24,298),  and 
children  (10,417).  Since  the  total  increase  of  Japanese  population 
by  immigration  in  Continental  United  States  for  this  period  has  been 
only  10,968,  it  is  apparent  that  either  24,307  (35,275  — 10,968)  of 
those  “relatives”  have  returned  to  Japan  or  others  who  are  not  rela- 
tives have  done  so. 

An  interesting  item  deals  with  those  who  enter  the  United  States 
on  the  ground  that  they  were  “former  residents.”  Of  these  there 
were  32,879,  of  whom  12,108  were  laborers.  This  shows  how  mislead- 
ing, not  to  use  any  stronger  word,  are  Mr.  McClatchy’s  statements 
that  every  Japanese  in  California  who  either  is  or  was  a laborer  is 
“an  instance  of  direct  violation  on  the  part  of  Japan  of  the  ‘Gentle- 
men’s Agreement.’  ” 

INCREASE  OF  JAPANESE  POPULATION 

To  prove  that  Japan  has  been  violating  her  Agreement  Mr.  Mc- 
Clatchy  states  repeatedly  that  while  the  Chinese  population  has 
been  steadily  decreasing  since  1900,  “the  Japanese  population  has 
increased  sixfold”  (p.  243).  His  logic  is  truly  remarkable.  In  the 

8 


first  place  the  increase  of  population  since  1900  has  nothing  whatever 
to  do  with  it.  The  Gentlemen’s  Agreement  began  to  operate  only- 
in  1907.  To  judge  even  casually  whether  or  not  Japan  has  been 
carrying  out  the  Agreement,  one  has  only  to  look  at  the  following 
figures. 

Immigration  to  the  United  States,  Including  Hawaii 


Before  the  Gentlemen’s  Agreement 

After  the  Gentlemen’s  Agreement 

1899  

. 2,844 

1908  

. ...  15,803 

1900  

. 12,635 

1909  

. ...  3,111 

1901  

. 5,269 

1910  

. . . . 2,720 

1902  

. 14,270 

1911  

. . . . 4,520 

1903  

. 19,968 

1912  

. ...  6,114 

1904  

. 14,264 

1913  

. . . . 8,281 

1905  

. 10,331 

1914  

. . . . 8,929 

1906  

. 13,835 

1915  

. . . . 8,613 

1907  

. 30,226 

1916  

. . . . 8,680 

1917  

. . . . 8,991 

1918  

. ...  10,213 

1919  

. ...  10,064 

Hasty  observation 

of  this  table 

might  possibly  lead 

one  to  think 

that  even  under  the  Gentlemen’s  Agreement,  thousands  of  Japanese 
are  steadily  entering  the  United  States  as  new  immigrants  especially 
since  1912.  The  fact,  however,  is  that  since  1909,  the  first  full  year 
in  which  the  Agreement  was  in  complete  operation,  some  43,203 
of  the  “immigrants”  are  “former  residents”  and  59,538  are  registered 
as  “relatives  of  residents.”  These  figures  include  Japanese  arriving 
in  Hawaii.  The  following  table  will  throw  additional  light  on  the 
situation.  It  deals  exclusively  with  Continental  United  States  (ex- 
cluding Hawaii),  and  includes  all  those  admitted  and  departed  re- 
gardless of  their  classification  as  “immigrants”  or  “non-immigrants.” 
This  table  is  compiled  from  the  Annual  Reports  of  the  Commissioner 
General  of  Immigration,  Tables  A and  E. 

Alien  Japanese  Admitted  to  and  Departed  from  Continental 
United  States  (Excluding  Hawaii) 


Year 

Admitted 

Departed 

Net 

Former 

Residents 

Returning 

Wives 

Admitted 

Children 

Admitted 

Laborers 
with  Proper 
Passport 
Returning 

1909  ... 

. ...  2,432 

5,004 

—2,572 

850 

665 

275 

295 

1910  ... 

....  2,598 

5,024 

—2,426 

838 

880 

268 

245 

1911  ... 

. ...  4,282 

5,869 

—1,587 

1,202 

1,669 

513 

351 

1912  ... 

. ...  5,358 

5,437 

— 79 

1,869 

2,108 

538 

602 

1913  ... 

....  6,771 

5,647 

4-1,124 

2,873 

2,398 

642 

1,175 

1914  ... 

. ...  8,462 

6,300 

4-2,162 

3,852 

3,015 

786 

1,514 

1915  ... 

. ...  9,029 

5,967 

4-3,062 

4,063 

2,672 

1,269 

1,545 

1916  ... 

. ...  9,100 

6,922 

4-2,178 

4,150 

2,478 

1,326 

1,695 

1917  ... 

....  9,159 

6,581 

4-2,578 

4,128 

2,397 

1,432 

1,647 

1918  ... 

....11,143 

7,691 

4-3,452 

4,958 

2,824 

1,685 

1,774 

1919  ... 

....11,404 

8,328 

4-3,076 

4,096 

3,192 

1,685 

1,265 

Total  . . 

....79,738 

68,770 

4-10,968 

32,879 

24,298 

10,417 

12,108 

9 


A study  of  this  table  discloses  the  fact  that  from  1913  and  onward 
among  the  so-called  immigrants  there  were  between  3,000  and  4,000 
“former  residents”  who  returned  annually  to  the  United  States  and 
also  between  3,000  and  5,000  “relatives”  (wives  and  children).  The 
total  increase  of  Japanese  population  by  immigration  for  eleven  years 
was  only  10,968.  Since  the  large  immigration  only  began  in  1900, 
since  it  continued  unchecked  throughout  the  fiscal  year  1907,  and 
since  the  Gentlemen’s  Agreement  began  to  have  full  effect  only  in 
1909,  it  seems  rather  absurd  for  Mr.  McClatchy  to  argue  solemnly 
that  because  Japanese  population  increased  as  he  alleges  by  sixfold 
between  1900  and  1919,  it  was  evidence  of  gross  violation  of  the 
Gentlemen’s  Agreement. 

JAPANESE  POPULATION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES 

As  a base  for  his  charge  that  the  Japanese  population  increased 
“sixfold,”  he  calculates  that  the  Japanese  population  in  Continental 
United  States  is  “well  over  150.000”  (p.  278).  This  figure,  however, 
is  excessive,  as  can  be  easily  shown. 

The  Census  of  1910  gives  the  Japanese  population  in  the  United 
States  as  72.157.  The  increase  by  immigration,  1911-1919,  was  15,966. 
Japanese  children  born  in  California,  1911-1919,  were  approximately 
27,787,  of  whom  some  4,194  probably  died,  leaving  23,583.  The  Cen- 
sus of  1910  showed  that  Japanese  children  under  five  years  of  age  in 
Continental  United  States  exceeded  those  in  California  by  42  per 
cent.  If  the  same  ratio  still  holds  then  the  Japanese  children  born 
in  Continental  United  States  and  surviving  in  1919  was  approximately 
33,487.  This  is  certainly  too  large  because  it  makes  no  allowance 
for  those  returning  to  Japan.  Combining  results,  however,  we  find 
that  Japanese  population  in  Continental  United  States  in  1919  was 
approximately  121,610. 

Mr.  McClatchy’s  estimates  are  therefore  out  by  about  30,000,  a 
rather  serious  amount  when  he  uses  his  estimate  as  a basis  on  which 
to  charge  Japan  with  violation  of  the  Gentlemen’s  Agreement  because 
her  population  in  the  United  States  has  increased  “sixfold.”  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  since  1910  it  has  not  doubled.  Since  July,  1908,  at 
which  date  the  Agreement  first  went  into  full  operation,  the  popula- 
tion has  increased  from  about  77,055  to  approximately  121,610  or 
about  60  per  cent. 

SENATOR  PHELAN’S  CHARGES 

Senator  Phelan  attacks  the  “Gentlemen’s  Agreement”  from 
another  standpoint.  He  asserts  that  “there  is  a very  great  increase 
in  the  number  of  Japanese  coming  into  Continental  United  States 
. they  come  over  the  border”  and  thinks  that  he  proves  his 
point  by  saying  that  “immigration  officials  are  arresting  Japanese 
coming  over  the  border  all  the  time.”  “They  have  arrested  as  many 
as  40  in  one  day,  without  passports,  coming  over  the  border  and 
deported  them”  (p.  188). 


10 


One  would  suppose  from  his  method  of  statement  that  in  the 
course  of  a year  there  would  certainly  be  several  hundred  arrested 
and  deported.  The  report,  however,  of  the  Commissioner  General 
of  Immigration  shows  that  in  1919  there  were  only  134  all  told  de- 
ported and  in  1918  but  40.  These  cases  of  smuggling,  moreover, 
do  not  in  the  least  prove  violation  of  the  Gentlemen’s  Agreement  by 
the  Japanese  Government- — they  are  private  individual  ventures. 
The  Senator  himself  says  they  were  “without  passports.”  The  fact 
that  Japanese  who  cannot  get  passports  smuggle  their  way  into 
America  proves  rather  that  the  Japanese  Government  is  in  fact  ad- 
ministering the  Agreement  faithfully.  Since  it  regards  them  as  not 
eligible  under  the  Agreement  it  refuses  to  give  them  passports. 

But  we  should  remember  that  Japanese  are  not  the  only  sinners 
in  respect  of  smuggling.  Chinese  have  become  notorious  in  this  mat- 
ter. Smugglers  come  indeed  from  all  lands.  Deported  aliens  for 
the  fiscal  year  1919  totalled  2,257,  the  largest  number  for  a single 
people  being  1,381  Mexicans,  and  the  next  being  English,  with  188. 

Senator  Phelan  charges  Japan  with  “evading”  the  Gentlemen’s 
x^.greement  “by  the  shipment  of  picture  brides  into  this  country.” 
The  object,  he  says,  is  to  “breed”  children,  who  as  American-born 
may  become  owners  of  land,  which  ownership  the  law  denies  to  the 
parents.  This  he  says  is  “a  clear  evasion  of  the  law.”  The  Senator 
recognizes  that  a test  case  was  decided  in  Riverside  in  which  “the 
court  said  that  it  saw  no  evidence  on  the  part  of  the  Japanese  to 
evade  the  law”  (p.  192).  Should  not  the  Senator  attack  the  courts 
of  his  oAvn  state  rather  than  the  Japanese? 

“There  is  another  more  favorite  way  of  evading  the  statute,”  he 
says,  “and  that  is  by  organizing  corporations  under  our  lax  corpora- 
tion law  . . . they  get  45  per  cent  aliens  and  55  per  cent  citi- 

zens.” Although  he  says  that  he  has  secured  the  statistics  of  such 
corporations  from  the  Secretary  of  State  and  that  the  situation  is 
“alarming”  (p.  193),  he  does  not  submit  the  statistics  for  scrutinv. 
They  are  probably  rediculously  small.  But  whatever  the  statistics 
may  be,  if  the  law  specifically  provides  that  corporations  may  be 
formed  in  which  aliens  may  constitute  a minority,  it  is  difficult  to 
see  how  their  formation  constitutes  an  “evasioti  of  the  law.”  He 
says  it  would  be  easy  to  regulate  the  evil  “if  the  legislative  branch 
would  only  act”  (p.  193).  Evidently  the  “legislative  branch”  does 
not  regard  the  evil  as  alarming  as  does  the  Senator. 

Senator  Phelan  submitted  to  the  House  Committee  on  Immigra- 
tion an  important  letter  of  August  28,  1919,  from  Hon.  Wm.  Phillips, 
Acting  Secretary  of  State,  in  response  to  his  letter  inquiring  about 
the  effectiveness  of  the  operation  of  the  “Gentlemen’s  Agreement.” 
The  entire  letter  merits  careful  study.  The  following  sentences  give 
the  general  purport.  “The  present  arrangement  is  working  with  a 
fair  degree  of  satisfaction,  with  the  possible  exception  of  the  immi- 
gration of  so-called  Japanese  picture  brides  to  the  United  States.” 

“The  authorities  who  have  in  charge  the  administration  of  the 


11 


immigration  laws  have  not  found  that  the  Japanese  Government  is 
violating  the  Agreement”  (pp.  265-267).  The  Senator  calmly  dis- 
poses of  these  statements  and  of  the  whole  letter  by  saying  that  it 
is  “apologetic”  and  “diplomatic”  and  that  “the  Department  of  State 
tries  to  keep  on  good  relations  with  Japan.”  Apparently  the  Senator 
feels  no  such  need. 

Indeed,  he  frankly  stated  to  the  Committee  on  June  20,  that  the 
Administration  has  been  in  the  past  “overawed”  by  the  Japanese. 
“There  has  been  a certain  subservience  on  the  part  of  the  Administra- 
tion, both  the  present  Administration  and  other  Administrations, 
in  a diplomatic  way,  to  avoid  any  conflict  or  any  irritation.  A very 
desirable  thing  to  do  when  your  life  is  not  at  stake,  but  you  do  not 
put  on  soft  gloves  with  a man  who  is  making  an  assault  upon  you.” 
He  then  goes  on  to  say  that  now  that  we  have  “behind  us  a very 
powerful  army  and  a very  powerful  fleet,  there  is  no  use  of  mincing 
things”  (p.  183). 

We  will  note  but  one  more  extraordinary  assertion  by  Senator 
Phelan.  He  claims  that  he  assisted  in  stopping  the  purchase  by 
Japanese  in  Imperial  Valley,  Mexico,  of  800,000  acres  of  land  for 
$50,000,000  (p.  200).  This  assertion  has  been  completely  discredited 
by  statements  from  Secretary  of  Agriculture  of  Mexico  and  by  state- 
ments of  the  Real  Estate  Company  in  Los  Angeles  which  was  charged 
with  having  planned  the  deal.  He  says  in  the  same  connection — 
“that  the  Japanese  have  made  contracts  with  Brazil  and  with  Car- 
ranza in  Mexico  and  have  taken  over  vast  tracts  of  land  and  have 
established  great  colonies.”  He  offers  not  a particle  of  evidence  for 
the  statement.  But  what  if  they  have?  Has  America  any  right  to 
forbid  it?  The  assertion  implies  an  utterly  vicious  theory  of  the 
relation  of  the  United  States  to  Mexico  and  Brazil. 

CONCLUSION 

The  foregoing  examination  of  the  charges  by  Senator  Phelan 
and  Mr.  McClatchy  that  the  Japanese  Government  has  been  “grossly 
violating”  or  even  “evading”  the  “Gentlemen’s  Agreement”  shows 
that  those  charges  are  without  foundation. 

In  1913,  when  the  mutual  irritation  of  California  and  Japan  was 
at  its  height  over  California’s  Anti-Alien  Land  Law,  Baron  Makino, 
then  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs,  conferred  quite  fully  with  Lord 
Bryce  who  happened  to  be  in  Japan  at  that  time.  “Trust  America,” 
Lord  Bryce  said.  “Her  sense  of  justice  is  so  keen  that  in  the  end 
she  will  do  the  right  thing.”  “This,”  says  Baron  Makino,  “is  the 
fundamental  principle  and  spirit  controlling  Japan’s  attitude  to 
America.” 

It  is  for  America  to  see  that  that  trust  is  justified. 


U 


